Four Firemen Die in Socialist Fire

The headline in the newspaper was a horrendous one: Wildfire kills 4 firefighters in N. Cascades. Pictured was Pete Soderquist, the fire management officer in charge on the Cascade Mountains in central Washington state, who explained that the deaths were due to "when what had been a five-acre fire exploded into a wall of flame that trapped the crew." Also featured in photographs were the four firemen who perished: 30 year old Tom Craven, 18 year old Karen Fitzpatrick, 21 year old Devin Weaver, and 19 year old Jessica Johnson, all who lived in either Ellensburg or Yakima, Washington.

Any time there is a death of a human being, it is a tragedy (the reaction of the overpopulationists to the contrary notwithstanding). When this occurs for any reason other than old age, this is even worse. When death is not instantaneous, and relatively painless, this is worse yet. When this occurs to four people in the prime of their lives - they were, respectively 30, 18, 21 and 19 years old - the degree of catastrophe rises even more, in view of the now never to be seen potential these four youngsters might have attained had they lived.

So far, these comments are pretty conventional. Very few would demur. But there are two controversial points to be made about this episode, both of which may teach important lessons.

First, this calamity occurred on public property, not private. The flames that consumed these four people took place in the Okanogan and Wenatchee national forests, and are believed to have been set near Thirty Mile campground, another example of socialized land ownership. Now I am not saying that no deaths occur on private property. I do not maintain that these particular occurrences would necessarily have been avoided were these lands under private control.

However, the two are not unrelated, either. When a forest fire consumes private timber, there are individuals who feel it in their bank accounts; this is not the case with socialized land holdings. This means that the incentives are greater, by how much is an empirical matter, for profit making individuals to take greater precautions regarding their property than is true for their public counterparts. If we have learned anything from the fall of the Soviet economic system - and this is a highly debatable point - it is that things work better under private ownership. These four young people will have not died totally in vain if we use their deaths as a rallying cry for privatization of the forest. Perhaps if we succeed in this effort, other lives will be saved.

Second, there were two females amongst the death toll in this fire. I see their smiling faces shining out at me from the newspaper coverage of this event. Both young girls were very pretty.

There was a time in our past when no such thing could have occurred; when fire fighting (along with other such dangerous activities as mining, policing, soldiering, lumber jacking, deep sea fishing, etc.) were the total province of men. Women and children died in calamities to be sure, but only if they were caught up in them as victims. Nowadays, with our modern dispensations, we place females in the front lines.

This is no less than an abomination. Females are far more precious than males. It is not for nothing that farmers keep a few bulls and hundreds of cows. It is due to patriarchy that we owe our very existence as a species. Imagine if our cave men ancestors had sent their women out to hunt and face the lions and tigers when they came a-calling, instead of throwing themselves at these enemies, sacrificing themselves so that mankind could persist. After World War II, the adult male population of Germany, Russia and other countries that suffered the most from the fighting was virtually wiped out. Yet the next generation, thanks to the relatively few men who survived, was able to come into being as if those losses had never occurred. Imagine if this war was fought primarily by the fairer sex; there would have been virtually no next generation. It cannot be denied that biologically speaking, men are in effect expendable drones.

So let us use the unfortunate deaths of these two young girls to resolve to turn back the clock to an earlier day when women were treated the way they should be treated. Let us return from "firefighters" to "firemen." Let us no longer blithely acquiesce in the senseless slaughter of precious females. Let us, instead, place them back up on that "pedestal" from which the so-called feminist movement has thrown them.

Now, of course, in a free society, people should be able to hire whomever they choose. Females should not be prohibited from trying to enter dangerous professions. And, of course, there are certain police jobs for which only women are by nature qualified to fill: e.g., prison guard in a female facility (but not to help wipe out prostitution, which should be legalized in any case). So this plea that we use the deaths of these two young Cascade women as an inspiration for ensuring the safety of future generations cannot be done through compulsion. But at the very least let us rescind all laws which require equal representation, or "balance." This should be done in all occupations, but let us at least begin with the dangerous ones. Freedom of association is not only just, it will promote the survival of our species as well.

I am writing to you in response to your article, “Four firemen die in socialist fire.” I see in your article that you attempt to portray women as a more precious commodity than men, and you use that approach as an excuse to take women out of “dangerous” situations/professions in order to keep the great reproductive machine running smoothly. There is a very obvious sentence in your article that easily pulls the façade off of your article.

“I see their smiling faces shining out at me from the newspaper coverage of this event. Both young girls were very pretty.”

What difference does it make if both girls were very pretty? Were the two men that died very handsome? Would that make a difference as to whether those men should have been put in harms way? Pretty matters to you because as you state in your article:

“It is not for nothing that farmers keep a few bulls and hundreds of cows. It is due to patriarchy that we owe our very existence as a species.”

And a pretty girl is easier to picture yourself procreating with than an unattractive girl, so get her off the fireline so she is safe to have my babies! Although it holds true that women are the life giving force to this world, that surely isn’t the only thing we are here for. It’s also worth pointing out the obvious, that the mass population of women and men alike are not interested in dangerous professions, so the small population of both sexes that choose to do these jobs are not going to wipe out the potential of the future population should they perish in the line of duty.

I have been a wildland firefighter for just over a decade now and I have seen both sexes come and go thru the revolving door in this profession. It’s not a job that is for everyone; it requires physical strength and endurance, mental fortitude, and an ability to be uncomfortable for extended periods of time. It doesn’t matter about the sex, it matters about the person. If you had ever spent anytime in this profession you might realize that having both sexes is what keeps men from getting too “alpha male” with one another and draws the bonds of camaraderie closer, as women promote balance. The definition of feminism is:

fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

It is quite obvious that you do not hold that belief which is sad, and frankly quite pathetic given that you are in Academia, but I cannot control your ignorance. My intent in writing to you is basic; I would like to clearly state that regarding the profession of wildland firefighting and which sex is best suited for the job, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. It may be rude, bold, or “un-lady like” to end my response to you in this way, but I would like to end with the very first thought I had after reading your article….

I'm a female wildland fire fighter myself, and I have to say this is the most infuriating article I have ever read. As f#@king awesome as I am, I am not any better than those two guys who died in that fire and it makes me sick to think that someone would value my life over theirs based on the fact I can have babies. Turns out there's a surplus of women and babies in the world and some of us just want an honest hard working man to spend our lives with. Maybe like the ones who lost their lives doing what they loved. I have no respect for you or your opinion Walter. Your grasp on the issues of land management and feminism are indeed flawed and though I could spend a week explaining all of the ways in which you are wrong, I have some babies to not make.

Walter, I've served fighting fire and in search and rescue operations with many females. I cannot second the two above comments strongly enough. I am also the father of two daughters and am married to a fellow former firefighter. If my daughters want to jump out of airplanes to fight fire I'll support that 100% if they'd want to be involved with a dip like you, well, I don't know what I'd do but there would be a lot of forgiving them. How does a publication like Psychology Today publish this drivel?
Wouldn't have died if it was private land. Bullshit. You clearly know nothing. Land management policy for the past 400 years created this terrible fire crisis private or not. Grow up and educate yourself please.

The author of this article is simply rediculous. How unfortunate for him to not see or appreciate the great strengths, skills and wisdom women bring to all professions they pursue. It is my privilege to know some women wildfire fighters. They are awesome individuals. And that, sir, is what it's all about.

I cannot believe they allow such a narrow minded idiot to write an article for Psychology Today! Not sure what era you are stuck in, however, today men and women are EQUAL.We are living in a free country where we can choose our own career paths! The lives of men and women are created equal. Women are much more than a pretty face, a@@hole!

In this article of mine, "Four Firemen die in socialist fire" which has been so bitterly excoriated, I do say the following: "Females should not be prohibited from trying to enter dangerous professions." Pardon me for thinking that females are the more precious gender for the survival of the human race, but it happens to be true. As I also say, " After World War II, the adult male population of Germany, Russia and other countries that suffered the most from the fighting was virtually wiped out. Yet the next generation, thanks to the relatively few men who survived, was able to come into being as if those losses had never occurred. Imagine if this war was fought primarily by the fairer sex; there would have been virtually no next generation. It cannot be denied that biologically speaking, men are in effect expendable drones." It is more than passing curious that none of my detractors comment on this extrapolation, of the four deaths. Yes, of course my comments are sexist. But they are true! They are also humanist, in the sense of wanting to preserve our species. The logical implication, like it or not, is that those who are opposed sexism, are not really humanists, in this sense. Walter Block

Whelp Walter, I hope you've learned something from this. Most likely I'm guessing you haven't as by the picture of you I can see you're old and probably set in your ways. I could go off the cuff and say some mean things like the other readers have, but I won't. Here's what I'm gonna do Walt. I'm going to forgive you. And I hope someday when you meet your maker they give you a hug and say, "Walter, you were wrong." And then just maybe they have you stand there and wait to meet each person you've effected with your negative article and apologize to them.

Walter, Walter, Walter... You have no grasp of the social complexities and comraderies involved in the small community called wildland fire, but you have kicked a hornets nest you really should leave alone. Wildland firefighters are a tightly knit family of men and women who protect forests, structures, financial interests and human life across public and private landscapes. We number in the few; enough that you are consistently making new friends, but in small enough number that f you have been in the business even a few seasons, you can go to almost any fire across the nation and see a familiar face. Your article is flawed on a scholastic basis because the human race and population of the US is not threatened, and as I said before, our numbers are few. Even if you rounded up every wildland firefighter (regardless of sex) and took their lives, the population would still not be on jeopardy. It is also flawed on principal; we as females do not require old, creepy men to dictate our career choices. We are not forced to don nomex and hard hats, we come by it naturally.. Magnetized to the allure of an honest day's work, comraderie of what becomes our 20 closest friends, and the untold adventures we conquer. We are not maidens in distress for your saving; least of all by you. We are also not akin to livestock for you to manage as you please. Please keep your offensively base ideas far from the wildland community, as they are unwelcomed by the men and women in vibram-soled boots alike.

Oh dear, it seems that you have chosen the wrong subject to educate us about your findings of the human species. That sucks. For you, and most of the media/general public, will NEVER know (or use the correct verbage) why some men/women choose wildland fire as an occupation. Your sexist tirade?? Used to it, tiresome. And when we lose one, and sometimes a group of friends on the line, it unfortunately hits us hard. Please take these comments as a lesson in your journalism career, you struck out on this one bud.

I also resist the notion that just because I disagree with a number of readers of Psychology Today on this issue, that it is improper to include me as one of the writers for this magazine. Is there to be no room for dissenting opinions? Is PT not to have any intellectual diversity at all?

Unhappily, I cannot react to each and every one of my critics.
For those of you who are interested in my other publications on the subject of sexism, discrimination, humanism, etc., where I do indeed respond to most of these criticisms, you might want to take a look at some of these: